The Maine Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit against Gov. Janet Mills (D), Senate President Troy Jackson (D-Aroostook), and Speaker of the House Rachael Talbot Ross (D-Portland).

The case centered around a parliamentary maneuver Democrats used to secure the passage of a partisan budget with a simple majority of the Legislature’s support, a move that required the governor to call the Legislature back into session in the spring of 2023 using powers reserved for “extraordinary occasions.”

Plaintiffs in the case alleged that the series of procedural moves made by Gov. Mills, Senate President Jackson, and Speaker of the House Ross violated Maine’s Constitution.

Under Maine’s constitution, bills are typically able to be passed by a simple majority and take effect ninety days after adjournment.

Bills with an “emergency” designation, however, go into effect as soon as they are signed into law by the governor, but in order to pass, they must receive support from at least two-thirds of both chambers.

In order to avoid the risk of a funding gap and potential government shutdown in 2023, lawmakers either had to pass a bipartisan, emergency budget or adjourn early so that the ninety-day window elapsed before the end of the fiscal year.

The latter of these two scenarios ultimately played out, with Mills going on to issue a proclamation calling the Legislature back into session in response to the “extraordinary occasion arising out of the need to resolve many legislative matters pending at the time of the adjournment.”

The plaintiffs in this case included several Maine residents, the non-profit organization Respect Maine, and lawmakers Rep. Shelley Rudnicki (R-Fairfield) and Rep. Randall Greenwood (R-Wales).

In bringing this lawsuit, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, to have the courts declare Mills’ proclamation reconvening the Legislature unconstitutional for lack of an “extraordinary occasion,” to halt the legislative work of the first special session, and to nullify anything passed during this time.

The nullification over an entire session of legislation would have been an extraordinary development with far-reaching implications.

According to the plaintiffs, the series of events that transpired in the Spring of 2023 represented an unconstitutional coordinated effort between legislative leadership and the governor to “dictate the terms of legislative sessions” by “improperly delegat[ing] legislative constitutional authority to the executive branch.”

The Maine Supreme Court explained in their ruling Tuesday that none of the parties in this case successfully demonstrated that they had standing to bring a case against the Mills, Jackson, and Ross for their actions last year.

This decision is reflective of the Justices’ questions during oral arguments in May, much of which focused on the issue of standing or lack thereof.

The Justices note in their opinion that they while affirm the Superior Court’s dismissal of the case, they do so only “on the ground that the plaintiffs lack standing.” As a result of this, the state’s highest court did not delve into the merits of the case in their ruling this week.

Click Here to Read the Maine Supreme Court’s Full Ruling

Full Disclosure: Carl E. Woock — who represented the plaintiffs in this case — is an attorney with Steven Smith Trial Lawyers, which advertises with the Maine Wire.